R. V. Latimer Case Brief

Tracey Latimer the daughter of Robert Latimer was 12 years old and had cerebral

palsy, Because of this she required around the clock care by her parents. She was

not dying from this but she was in extreme pain. Tracey went through multiple

surgeries. Robert believed that putting his daughter through more surgeries would

be cruel and unjust. As a result of this Robert decided to bring his daughter into the

garage and put her in his car, he then turned the engine on and poisoned her with

carbon monoxide. Tracey’s mother was not involved in this, Latimer denied killing

her at first but he later then confessed for his actions .In the trial R. V Latimer

(1997) Robert was convicted for second degree murder although the Supreme
court

of Canada overruled the decision because of improper actions at the jury selection

stage.
In the resulting second trial, Mr. Latimer was again indicted second degree

murder, however he was sentenced to just a single year in jail instead of the

minimum required ten under the Criminal Code, since in the conditions of the case

10 years was seen as cruel and unusual. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal later

expanded the sentence to 10 years. Mr. Latimer in the end advanced the case to the

Supreme Court, contending that the sentence was too long as well as that the trial

was uncalled for in light of the fact that the judge chose the guard of need couldn't

be contended despite the fact that this choice came simply after the resistance had

contended it. It was additionally asserted that the judge had deluded the jury into

feeling that they could impact the length of the sentence. Since numerous in the jury

longed for a lighter sentence than that endorsed by the Criminal Code, it has been

contended that the jury may have turned to jury invalidation had they realized that

they couldn't choose the length of the sentence.

The Court first held that not just was the safeguard of need not able to legitimize

Robert Latimer's activities additionally the inapplicability of the guard ought to
have

been obvious to the point that Mr. Latimer's legal counselors ought to have foreseen

its dismissal, and in this manner the way that judge rejected it simply after the

barrier was contended was not uncalled for. The Court initially refered to point of

reference that the guard of need is summoned just where "genuine "requirement" is

available." This includes being faced with a genuine peril, no different choices yet to

carry out a wrongdoing to keep away from that risk, and "proportionality between

the damage exacted and the mischief maintained a strategic distance from." While

the Court recognized that the individual's subjective perspectives in measuring

moving toward threats and different alternatives could be considered, alongside a

goal appraisal (this was known as an "adjusted target test"), for this situation the

protection of need fizzled. Firstly, the asserted peril being kept away from, the

surgery, debilitated not Mr. Latimer yet Tracy. Besides, the Court composed,

"continuous agony did not constitute a crisis for this situation." The Court trusted

that Mr. Latimer ought to have possessed the capacity to comprehend this,

particularly since there were contrasting options to surgery, for example, the

sustaining tube. The Court went ahead to find that Mr. Latimer had different

contrasting options to killing his girl, in particular that "he could have battled on,"

but "with what was verifiably a troublesome circumstance."